Wednesday, August 30, 2006

“And please allow me also to quote from the holy book of the Jews, that is the Talmud. I suppose you know that the Talmud is Judaism's holiest book. Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism.”

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The Talmud is not the holy book of the Jews! It’s really just a sort of a commentary and interpretation of the Tanakh. “Tanakh” is a Hebrew acronym or name of their entire actual holy book (The Dr. doesn’t know but the Jews don’t call it the Old Testament—only Christians call it by that name). Nowhere does the Talmud contradict the Tanakh, and if it does (hypothetical) then the commandment in the Tanakh supersedes that found in the Talmud.

Dr. Danial: It is stated in Sanhedrin 58b, “If a heathen (i.e. non-Jew) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.” And In Sanhedrin 57a, “When a Jew murders a gentile (‘Cuthean’), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.” A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley recently did a thorough research on the contents of the Talmud and what they found surprised them. In their book, Judaism's Strange God, they said, 'On the surface, it seems that genocide is advocated by the Talmud. In the Minor Tractates, Soferim 15, Rule 10, there is a saying by Rabbi Simon ben Yohai, ‘Tob shebe goyyim harog,’ which means, ‘even the best of the gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) should all be killed.’

All that our nice Dr. needed to do was read the Talmud for himself and his hatred against the Jews might have faded a little but no, he didn’t want to commit the sin called ‘researching’. There is an explanation for all this, but it’s too lengthy to reproduce here. These two links explain what the passages actually mean—Theft and Murder under Jewish law.

Dr. Danial: “But, can't you do the same thing to the Quran? Can't you interprete (sic) verses of the Quran within its context?”

Sure we can and that’s what we do. For those looking for context, please read Sura 9:5-12 and 9:29-31. Sura 9:5-12 and 9:29 tells Muslims on how to kill the infidels, please do note that it only says that they be spared if “they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, - they are your brethren in Faith” (v. 11) and not on any other condition as many modern Islamic and leftist scholars say quoting v. 6.

Also read Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Sura 9:5. Ibn Kathir’s work is the most renowned and authoritative commentary of the Quran in the Sunni Islamic world (Sunnis makes up about 85% of the total world Muslim population).

It should be noted that, although there are violent passages to be found in other Holy books, never have the commentators took them as commands that will last forever but have always understood them to be binding for a specific time. Whereas, until recently, all of the Muslim scholars agreed that the violent verses, specifically the infamous ‘verse of the sword’ Sura 9:5 (and the likes) abrogate (i.e. cancel out) all the Quranic verses of peace and tolerance with the infidels. Some of the most renowned Islamic scholars that have backed the principle of abrogation are Ibn Ishak, Ibn Hisham, At Tabari, etc.

Dr. Danial: “What do you expect at my hands?" They answered, "Mercy O generous brother." And the prophet said, "Be it so, you are free.”

Dr. Danial forgot to mention that all of the Meccans converted to Islam, and also that Mohammed did kill 10 of the Meccans who had first converted to Islam and later reverted back to their religion. If someone who’d wronged me at some point in life later came to me and said that he will serve me forever, even I’d forgive him. Mohammed had the whole Mecca bending over in front of him—no wonder he forgave them.

“No Guantanamo-like prison for them (smile).”

Dr. Danial seems to be advocating that the terrorists should all be set free so they can continue going around blowing up malls and pizza parlors and bar mitzvahs and anything non-Muslim that they see. Well, at least our Dr. did create an analogy between the Meccans (whom Muslims see as the wrong-doers) and the Muslim terrorists. I will give the Dr. credit here that even though he was trying to prove all the Muslims innocent all along, he ended up saying the same thing we’ve been saying—they’re terrorists, not innocent.

“And you are telling me that Muhammad taught Muslims to become terrorists?”

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m telling you.

And to end the debate, Dr. Danial had poor John say this:

John:Yeah, I need to learn more about Muhammad…

I’m glad Dr. Danial didn’t end it with “The End, Credits…” or the Hollywood might have taken the debate as a script for a movie entitled “Dumberer and Dumbest”.

A note for Muslims: I am an ex-Muslim, and my information comes mainly from Islamic sources. So after reading this post, don’t start cursing the Zionists--they had nothing to do with this.